From ...
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: Affordable Common Lisp implementations on Win95/98/NT?
Date: 2000/06/24
Message-ID: <3170831201734531@naggum.no>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 638397643
References: <39526DB6.3577D730@bluewin.ch> <8ivcdd$mn8$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3170783555887716@naggum.no>
mail-copies-to: never
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@eunet.no
X-Trace: oslo-nntp.eunet.no 961844202 20132 195.0.192.66 (24 Jun 2000 10:56:42 GMT)
Organization: Naggum Software; vox: +47 8800 8879; fax: +47 8800 8601; http://www.naggum.no
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0803 (Gnus v5.8.3) Emacs/20.6
Mime-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: 24 Jun 2000 10:56:42 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
* "Fernando"
| It's a very similar and related language...
Wrong. Scheme is not similar and not related to Common Lisp qua
languages. Scheme is of course related to some Lisps at the time it
was developed, but owes a lot more to Algol than to the Lisp family,
and Common Lisp has evolved a lot more than Scheme from those older
LIsps. Scheme is, in brief, Algol with a nice syntax and without
the declarations.
| Hmm... fine, but the factorial function wasn't defined as tail-recursive.
Oh, shoot, but I, too, have an error quota to fill. :)
| Could you explain this? Why does it reduce the debuggability?
In brief: Missing stack frames.
#:Erik
--
If this is not what you expected, please alter your expectations.